Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Humanist and Secularist as Synonyms for Atheist
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
Exodus 20:14
The nation has been wringing its collective hands over the pederasty scandal among Catholic priests. Not only have the dangers and foolishness of the doctrine of priestly celibacy been exposed, but the disgraceful situation has also revealed the absolute bankruptcy of biblical morality and ethics throughout the Catholic hierarchy. It presents the picture of a feeble old man holding his hands out in dismay, saying, "What should I do?" Like most of mankind, even many "Christians," Catholic theologians threw out the Bible as the basis for their beliefs a long time ago. Tradition and the pontifications of the Popes hold at least as much sway as God's Word, and truth be told, probably more—much more. Thus, looking to the Bible for answers to the current crisis will not be a common action. Of course, the seventh commandment—"You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14)—covers the perversions of pederasty, as it also covers homosexuality, the unmentioned other half of this equation (see Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27). Though the Bible does not specifically say, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of a child," the underlying assumption is that this would be universally known to be evil. In any case, sexual relations with a minor outside of marriage would be fornication, a sin covered in numerous verses. What is the proper biblical penalty for pederasty? As mentioned, pederasty is not found in the Bible, but the instructions concerning fornication and homosexuality can give us guidance. Notice Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." The penalty for fornication varied according to the situation. In a case of rape—in which the woman's cries for help could not be heard—only the man was put to death (see Deuteronomy 22:25-27). By combining these two penalties, the child-molester would be put to death, while his traumatized victim would not be punished. Of course, this solution would never be used in our modern, therapeutic, humanistic society. Even though our good and just Creator God gave these laws to regulate behavior among carnal people, the "wise" and politically correct people of today think of such a penalty as harsh, barbaric, and cruel. Yet, how else can human society deter further criminal and sinful behavior? The penal law God gave to Israel—based on the "eye-for-an-eye" principle (Exodus 21:23-25), that is, punishment to fit the crime—had four primary characteristics that our system lacks. To produce deterrence, punishments were: 1. applied equally to all people: rich, poor, high, low, Israelite, or Gentile (see Exodus 12:49).
2. executed publicly as an example to the community (see Leviticus 24:13; Deuteronomy 21:21).
3. generally "brutal" to teach the serious effect of sin (see Deuteronomy 13:11; 20:16-18).
4. enacted swiftly to link crime to punishment (see Ecclesiastes 8:11). Today's sentences vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes trial to trial; occur out of the public eye, usually in a prison; lack teeth, so much so that in some cases inmates prefer prison life to life on the outside; and descend on the criminal months or years after his crime. Little in the modern system commends itself to true justice or the betterment of humanity. If we desire a little bit of hope, it is good in these days of continuing decline—what judge Robert Bork called "slouching toward Gomorrah"—to remember the words of Amos 5:15: "Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph." The bad news is that this ray of hope shines through only after a great storm of grief and destruction—God's justice—that looks imminent. The good news is that, after that, Jesus Christ will establish His truly just government on the earth to rule for all eternity (Isaiah 11:1-5)!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Deterrence
|
|
Psalm 14:1
Liberals, says James Hitchcock in "The Enemies of Religious Liberty" (First Things, February 2004, pp. 26-30), especially those infesting America's universities, have come to detest religion—any religion, anywhere. To these secularists, faith in the unseen God is incomprehensible and irrational. They view it as divisive to the coherence of society, as well as destructive. Stanford University professor and philosopher Richard Rorty believes that "the 'highest achievements of humanity' are incompatible with religion" (Truth and Progress, 1991). It may be instructive to see what Rorty's peers in liberal academia have to say about our religious freedoms. Since they see religion as at odds with freedom, academic liberals are increasingly coming to believe that the state has the right—indeed the obligation—to "damage-control" religion. So, New York University Law Professor David A.J. Richards claims that it is necessary for the state to foster its own religion, "a religion and an ethics that validate the highest order moral powers of rationality and reasonableness of a free people" (Toleration and the Constitution, 1986). Chicago University Professor of Jurisprudence Cass Sunstein advocates using "the liberal state to force the intolerant to be tolerant" (The Partial Constitution, 1999). Intolerant here means espousing strong religious beliefs, beliefs by which one lives. European University Institute Professor of Legal Theory and Legal Philosophy Wojciech Sadurski argues that no state can permit religious groups that have not transformed themselves into bodies both "rational" and self-critical" (Moral Pluralism, 1990). The state, therefore, becomes mentor, teacher, and priest. Princeton University's Steven Macedo in his book, The New Right Versus the Constitution, sees the state as "a permanently educative order," allowing the legitimate authority to use its coercive powers (read, police powers) against "illiberal churches" in order to promote greater freedom. He has no problem at all with excluding religious people from public office, such as judgeships. The government's new "educative" power sets it in opposition to parents' rights to raise their children in their own religion. Politics professors Amy Gutmann of Princeton and Dennis Thompson of Harvard "explicitly hold that the state need not be concerned that its educational system might violate the rights of religious believers" (Democracy and Disagreement, 1996). William and Mary School of Law professor James Dwyer holds that "religious education inculcates 'reactionary and repressive' values in children, and for the good of the child, the state is not only obligated to prohibit such schools completely or monitor them closely but also to monitor closely how parents educate their children at home" (Religious Schools vs. Children's Rights, 1998). He goes on to state that "parental choice in education might be 'inconsistent with the state's aims.'" Under the banner of children's rights, parental rights are wiped away! Not unpredictably, Dwyer demands that "all education inculcate feminism and permissive attitudes toward sexual behavior, and that religions which fail to do so be made subject to state regulation." He believes that the government does not violate the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of religion "so long as its actions are intended to inhibit religion rather than to favor it." Kathleen M. Sullivan of Stanford University Law School claims that "religion must be treated 'asymmetrically' from other freedoms, with 'entanglement' between government and religion a good thing for the purpose of restraining religion." These haters of God would commit mayhem against the United States Constitution (and against Americans) in order to build their utopian society of sterile rationality and unfettered choice. While we are unable to stop them, we can be thankful that we side with the One who can—and will. In the utopia He builds, religion will have a paramount place.
Charles Whitaker (1944-2021)
Liberal Haters of God
|
|
1 Corinthians 11:3
The apostle Paul states an order of authority established by God that we need to understand. By means of the parallel between deity and mankind in God's order, Paul shows that a wife's submission to her husband in marriage does not imply her inferiority. How? In the parallel, Christ is not inferior to God the Father. All that God's order defines in this case is subordination. As the Father and Son are equally divine, the husband and wife are equally human. Even as the Father and Son have different roles in their relationship, so do the husband and wife in God's purposes for the family. In terms of government, there is a distinctive and deliberate similarity between the two organizations. Government is merely a system of operation, a means of directing and controlling so that the purposes of an organization are achieved. Though the Son is one with the Father, being of the same substance, power, and glory, He nonetheless voluntarily submits to the Father. In human marriage, husband and wife, like the Father and Son, are also essentially the same. In marriage, the submission of a woman to her husband is also intended to be voluntary. It is at this juncture that Satan, using men he controls through subtle deceits, has dealt a devastating blow to our culture. “Humanist” is a descriptor given to those who have abandoned a belief in God and religion. Some people refer to such people as “secularists.” Most of them claim atheism. Many of them are university-educated and earn salaries that place them in upper-middle-class income brackets. They also tend to be in positions of authority in government, business, education, and entertainment. Their reputations in the community often carry a great deal of influence. However, having abandoned God, their true spirituality and morality are terribly skewed, making their influence anti-God. Satan, using the humanists' influence, has convinced a large percentage of the public that sex and love are the same, a major departure from what was once generally believed in American culture. Sex and love are not equivalent. Love is so much greater in importance than sex that there is no adequate comparison. Humanists have also managed to convince many that everything is morally irrelevant. This, too, is untrue, but many fail to think it through. In reality, moral irrelevance actually drives marriages apart. In God's standard of morality, He is quite specific. For example, within marriage, sex is totally, completely, and absolutely limited to one's legal partner in that specific marriage. There are no exceptions. We find another restriction in I Corinthians 7:3-4: Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Even before marriage, both the man's and the woman's body belongs to their future spouses. Their bodies are not theirs to “just play around with.” This teaches us that fornication contributes to weakening a marriage that has not even occurred yet! Each partner in a marriage belongs to the other even before the marriage takes place. It is therefore each person's responsibility to preserve the body's sexual purity for the one he or she will marry.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Leadership and Covenants (Part Six)
|
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 155,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
